Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AndrewC wrote:
Solar, we have to use independent victory conditions because anything else becomes a pissing contest.

For example, please tell me if this is a victory or a loss. An IG armoured convoy along with an SoB detachment drive deep into nid infested territory and then leave losing all vehicles bar the SoB Rhino and nearly all personnel bar the crew of one tank and the SoB. They rescued no-one. And the nids took the planet.

Win or Loss?

Andrew

Yeah, that seems like a loss unless there's some detail you've not mentioned.

 Anemone wrote:
@AndrewC: I do complain to GW. I have written emails before. I do not know how one complains to BL to be honest, if you'd inform me how I'd appreciate it.

Yeah you see I'm very cautious about just 'choosing' my fluff since that seems to embroil any discussion of fluff on 40k into pointlessness since everyone can dismiss whatever they do not want and, thus, whatever points the person they're discussing with brings up. So...I'm very uncertain about vetting fluff in that manner.

Also how is the lack of a thing evidence that there is not a need for it? Or that it would not be an improvement?

Honestly though if this is your position then we don't have more to discuss. I think it is totally fair for players of factions other than the Imperium to want more role in the story and more success. I'm not going to abandon that principle.

Good to see you're selective on the reading material! However it does illustrate to you that there are levels of what people do or do not consider acceptable. And you have taken an approach that isn't consistent with this statement. You basically have said that fluff in which there are no specific names is not acceptable. Others have said that you take it all or not at all.

GW has been around for a long time and has produced many pieces of fiction, not all of it good and not all of it about the Imperium. Its fair to say that GW only wants the money and as such now they only produce Imperium centric fiction, presumably because that's what sells. That should ring alarm bells. As an aside, what was the answer from GW on your complaints?

I'm not sure if English is your first language from some of the terminology and grammar used because I've found some of your statements terse and abrupt. People are not asking you to abandon principles, but surely after nine pages you must see the futility of continuing this line of discussion as the majority posting here don't seem to care that much. When GW was challenged about this in the past their response was to get out there and play those games and win those victories, don't rely on someone else doing it for you.

People can disagree on things.

Cheers

Andrew

@Iron, the ork comment was poorly worded on my behalf, the intention was to show that the motivations of the orks and hence how they perceive winning and losing is different to that of the imperium. You didnt address the Black Crusade comment however.

@Solar if every faction had the same motivations then it would be a rather boring universe imo. The differences in each factions drive, goals and motivations changes what they would consider to be a win or a loss. Putting the same victory standards on each faction ignores alot of the fluff and setting and tries to make it black and white, and the setting will never be black or white

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Solar, we have to use independent victory conditions because anything else becomes a pissing contest.

For example, please tell me if this is a victory or a loss. An IG armoured convoy along with an SoB detachment drive deep into nid infested territory and then leave losing all vehicles bar the SoB Rhino and nearly all personnel bar the crew of one tank and the SoB. They rescued no-one. And the nids took the planet.

Win or Loss?

Andrew

Yeah, that seems like a loss unless there's some detail you've not mentioned.

According to the book it was a success because they retrieved some bone marrow, from a soldier who they left behind to die, allowing an admiral to live for a bit longer.

That's why its important to consider what the other side was trying to do. Getting their backsides handed to them in combat may not be a failure if the objective was to do something else. Take Armageddon, is it an ork victory or an Imperial one. Most people say its an Imperial one, but that's wrong its an Eldar one. The Eldar deflected a Waagh from them onto the Imperium and sat back with the popcorn.

Cheers

Andrew

Casti wrote:
@Solar if every faction had the same motivations then it would be a rather boring universe imo. The differences in each factions drive, goals and motivations changes what they would consider to be a win or a loss. Putting the same victory standards on each faction ignores alot of the fluff and setting and tries to make it black and white, and the setting will never be black or white

I'm not saying the factions should have the same motivations, or even that their motives should change. I'm fine with the Ork line where they claim to never lose. It's cool, its orky and it tells us a lot about them. But again, to stick with the same example of an entire Ork WAAAGH! getting stopped by a single space marine, Ork logic might tell us they won, but we the Ork players aren't Orks. That's not a win for the Ork faction. That's them getting their ass handed to them.

So we as humans beleive that the war of attrition that the imperials use as their standard go to tactic is a good thing? Pretty sure that type of thing disappeared with the insistance of building trenches because it wasnt worth the lives to gain the ground. Then bump that up to losing planets and solar systems, we as humans would regard that as a definate loss regardless if the enemy was later stopped in their advance or those planets were reconquered.

You cant place modern day condition of victory on the imperium either, their tactics are considered inhumane and shows a complete disregard for human life by todays standards

 AndrewC wrote:

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Solar, we have to use independent victory conditions because anything else becomes a pissing contest.

For example, please tell me if this is a victory or a loss. An IG armoured convoy along with an SoB detachment drive deep into nid infested territory and then leave losing all vehicles bar the SoB Rhino and nearly all personnel bar the crew of one tank and the SoB. They rescued no-one. And the nids took the planet.

Win or Loss?

Andrew

Yeah, that seems like a loss unless there's some detail you've not mentioned.

According to the book it was a success because they retrieved some bone marrow, from a soldier who they left behind to die, allowing an admiral to live for a bit longer.

That's why its important to consider what the other side was trying to do. Getting their backsides handed to them in combat may not be a failure if the objective was to do something else. Take Armageddon, is it an ork victory or an Imperial one. Most people say its an Imperial one, but that's wrong its an Eldar one. The Eldar deflected a Waagh from them onto the Imperium and sat back with the popcorn.

Cheers

Andrew

Well yeah, that detail wasn't mentioned, so this could've been a success. It really depends whether prolonging the admiral's life was worth what they lost, or if they ended up damaging the Tyranids more than they lost from it. In the book Ice Guard, a group of Valhallan elites go on a mission to rescue a famed Priest from behind enemy lines.They manage to rescue him, but they lost a lot of men and at the end the protagonist realizes that this priest is a pathetic, cowardly man who could neither lead nor inspire anyone. I wouldn't consider that skirmish a victory for the Imperium even though they completed their objective, but they hadn't defeated the Chaos or beaten them and they lost a lot more than they put in. So if you're not beating the enemy or gaining more than you're losing, I wouldn't consider it a victory.

Well assuming you're referring to the second Armageddon war, the Imperials did most definitely win, seeing as they beat the Orks and forced them to retreat. That's definitely an Imperial win. In diverting the Ork WAAAGH! the Eldar also won, but that wasn't a military win, and since this is a game focused on war and battle, I wouldn't really consider that relevant to what's at hand, seeing as its wins in war that's being discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casti wrote:
So we as humans beleive that the war of attrition that the imperials use as their standard go to tactic is a good thing? Pretty sure that type of thing disappeared with the insistance of building trenches because it wasnt worth the lives to gain the ground. Then bump that up to losing planets and solar systems, we as humans would regard that as a definate loss regardless if the enemy was later stopped in their advance or those planets were reconquered.

You cant place modern day condition of victory on the imperium either, their tactics are considered inhumane and shows a complete disregard for human life by todays standards

What? No, the Imperials battle tactic isn't a morally good thing. We care more for human lives than the Imperium does. What's your point here? Perhaps I'm just being stupid, I can't tell.

Regard for human life doesn't effect conditions of victory. Russia lost far more than Germany in WWII, they still won.

You arnt being stupid at all Solar.

My point was that you placed a human morale victory standard on the orks in a previous post, i was just applying that to the Imperium faction. I think it also illustrates the need for individusl faction victory conditions because a setstandard for all wont work in 40k

Also on an aside, this is a great debate, i am having great fun cheers to all for keeping it civil and insult free

Casti wrote:
You arnt being stupid at all Solar.

My point was that you placed a human morale victory standard on the orks in a previous post, i was just applying that to the Imperium faction. I think it also illustrates the need for individusl faction victory conditions because a setstandard for all wont work in 40k

Also on an aside, this is a great debate, i am having great fun cheers to all for keeping it civil and insult free

Not a bother. It's always good fun for a nice debate.

I'm not placing moral standards, I don't think morality has anything to do with this. I'm saying if you manage to defeat the enemy by wiping the enemy out or forcing them to retreat, that's winning. Wiping the enemy out by Imperial tactics such as just sending waves of troops to die to crush them certainly isn't moral, but it's still a win, as you've defeated the enemy.

The example Andrew gave was from a tyranid point of view. The IG and sisters drove into the jungle and then drove out again and the nids ate the planet. As that was all the info you were given, you called that a nid victory.

This lack of info is common throughout the fluff with only one side being told, thats why looking at each faction's motivations is key to identifying disparity between victories. If the Imperial stories claim Imperial wins and no losses then thats what the Imperium believes. Doesnt mean its accurate from a xenos or chaos point of view.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Casti wrote:
You arnt being stupid at all Solar.

My point was that you placed a human morale victory standard on the orks in a previous post, i was just applying that to the Imperium faction. I think it also illustrates the need for individusl faction victory conditions because a setstandard for all wont work in 40k

Also on an aside, this is a great debate, i am having great fun cheers to all for keeping it civil and insult free

Not a bother. It's always good fun for a nice debate.

I'm not placing moral standards, I don't think morality has anything to do with this. I'm saying if you manage to defeat the enemy by wiping the enemy out or forcing them to retreat, that's winning. Wiping the enemy out by Imperial tactics such as just sending waves of troops to die to crush them certainly isn't moral, but it's still a win, as you've defeated the enemy.

But at what cost?

I think the issue is that your approach doesn't distinguish between efficient and Pyrrhic victories.

The Imperium in the setting is a fireman putting out fires that could burn its house to the ground, slowly being exhausted without ever really putting all (or even most) of the fires out.

Certainly some Imperium victories are efficient: they gain (through sheer survival, often, but sometimes even by advancing and taking enemy ground) more than they lose (in terms of raw manpower, irreplaceable technologies, and most importantly attention and effort - per the fire example, the time and effort you spend putting out one fire may mean you leave another fire to burn longer and cause more damage elsewhere).

But a lot of Imperial victories are Pyrrhic in every sense of the word, and are done so at great cost (see above regarding diverting attention and effort). Tyranids are stopped, but often with whole planets, even whole systems, being consumed before that tendril is even slowed. The Orks at Armageddon are stopped, but only because the Imperium spent far more resources than it would have wanted in doing so, leaving the systems near the Tau Empire open to the easy predations of that same Empire.

This isn't to say the lore doesn't seem to favor the Imperium in individual battles, merely that simplifying a "win" condition to "wiping the enemy or forcing them to retreat" doesn't take into account the circumstances that inform us how efficient that victory was, and whether the benefit (stopping the enemy) was worth the cost there (in terms of irreplaceable tech being destroyed versus an Ork Waaggh which can be replaced by Orks that sprout like weeds and are effectively innumerable throughout the galaxy) and elsewhere (Just to keep Armageddon from being lost, the Imperium lost multiple systems to the Tau Empire - in stopping the Orks, they've merely changed where they incurred the loss).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


But at what cost?

I think the issue is that your approach doesn't distinguish between efficient and Pyrrhic victories.

The Imperium in the setting is a fireman putting out fires that could burn its house to the ground, slowly being exhausted without ever really putting all (or even most) of the fires out.

Certainly some Imperium victories are efficient: they gain (through sheer survival, often, but sometimes even by advancing and taking enemy ground) more than they lose (in terms of raw manpower, irreplaceable technologies, and most importantly attention and effort - per the fire example, the time and effort you spend putting out one fire may mean you leave another fire to burn longer and cause more damage elsewhere).

But a lot of Imperial victories are Pyrrhic in every sense of the word, and are done so at great cost (see above regarding diverting attention and effort). Tyranids are stopped, but often with whole planets, even whole systems, being consumed before that tendril is even slowed. The Orks at Armageddon are stopped, but only because the Imperium spent far more resources than it would have wanted in doing so, leaving the systems near the Tau Empire open to the easy predations of that same Empire.

This isn't to say the lore doesn't seem to favor the Imperium in individual battles, merely that simplifying a "win" condition to "wiping the enemy or forcing them to retreat" doesn't take into account the circumstances that inform us how efficient that victory was, and whether the benefit (stopping the enemy) was worth the cost there (in terms of irreplaceable tech being destroyed versus an Ork Waaggh which can be replaced by Orks that sprout like weeds and are effectively innumerable throughout the galaxy) and elsewhere (Just to keep Armageddon from being lost, the Imperium lost multiple systems to the Tau Empire - in stopping the Orks, they've merely changed where they incurred the loss).

What? Pyrrhic victories are still victories. In a galaxy such as 40k, every resource used in war means that every other faction other than the one you're fighting is benefitting from your expenditure. That victory shows the Imperium winning over the enemy, which is all we see. We don't see the Imperium losing on other fronts because of this. Sure we'll hear about them, but the fluff for the most part doesn't show us those battles that are lost because of this. So while a war might end in a pyrrhic victory that effects other battles, such as those systems being lost to the Tau, this faces the same issue as all the offscreen battles: we don't see it, so in purpose of getting interested in fluff, they're not really relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casti wrote:
The example Andrew gave was from a tyranid point of view. The IG and sisters drove into the jungle and then drove out again and the nids ate the planet. As that was all the info you were given, you called that a nid victory.

This lack of info is common throughout the fluff with only one side being told, thats why looking at each faction's motivations is key to identifying disparity between victories. If the Imperial stories claim Imperial wins and no losses then thats what the Imperium believes. Doesnt mean its accurate from a xenos or chaos point of view.

The lack of info about whether the Imperium thought they won, it was whether there were other aspects to the battle. If objectives that benefit your faction or greviously harm other factions are accomplished, that can can shift something from a loss to a win.

You still haven't answered the question about the Ork WAAAGH! vs the single space marine. If a space marine destroyed an entire WAAAGH! by himself and the old Ork belief that Orks can never lose is in place, did the Orks lose that battle?

@ Solar, I reckon the ork faction would regard it as a win going by there basic beliefs, not a good one but there was fighting and killing!

the stealing of the blackstone fortreses by abbadon would be considered a win by chaos then, going by your comments above. What was taken by abbadon outweighed thst which was lost in the battle and for the imperium they lost 4 irreplaceable fortresses with two of those going to the enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Constantine Iconoclast is a similar example of the effect one marine can have. Basically an imperial marine says "sod the imperium" and takes control of a planet and nearby systems. This evolves into a multi system brawl involving multiple chapters and ig regiments. With constantine drawing an major response from the imperium, would that be considered a win for chaos? Given the setting states that the imperiums resources are finite and thingly stretched, i would say its a win for chaos.

For the record constantine is eventually killed by an imperial assassin. But the systems were stilk at war for a long time after

Casti wrote:
@ Solar, I reckon the ork faction would regard it as a win going by there basic beliefs, not a good one but there was fighting and killing!

the stealing of the blackstone fortreses by abbadon would be considered a win by chaos then, going by your comments above. What was taken by abbadon outweighed thst which was lost in the battle and for the imperium they lost 4 irreplaceable fortresses with two of those going to the enemy.

They would, but would it be a win for Ork players? Would they be happy if Space Marines struck down WAAAGH!'s single handedly? Of course not. This is the issue here. Even though to the Orks it might be a win, to the players, it's just the Ork.

No, because although Abaddon managed to get the fortresses, he was still outright beaten in the battle and forced to retreat, unlike the afformentioned Sisters and Guardsmen who weren't beaten.

Still classed as a victory by chaos in their codex and supplements. As with the other black crusades


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would have bern an outright victory if the imperisls destroyed all 4 blackstones or completely destroyed the chaos fleet or pursued the chaos fleet into the eye of terror and destroyed them there. They let chaos get away with 2 blackstones and allowed them to regroup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell, the only reson why abbadon didnt get all 6 is because the eldar intervened and helped the imperium


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are set on denying that the Black Crusades of Abbadon have been victories for Chaos, you are cherry picking what parts of the fluff you are using in this argument. As it has been said before, use all of it or none of it. Additionally i will say again, nowhere in the fluff does it say that one side cant claim victory ifthe other side does.

Orks have the most planet, most territory and highest population in the galaxy st the moment. Even if they don't know it on an individual level they are in it for the long game (60+million years and counting) and are currently the most successful race. Due to lack of unification they don't get the medal for the largest cohesive empire in the galaxy which belongs to the Imperium of Man. The fluff says this. Nonetheless even from a human centric view of victory the Orks are currently winning.

The others are correct, however, in saying that such a standard for victory is negligible at an individual Orks point of view. I highly doubt any of them have any idea how many they are across the galaxy other then a crude view that green is da best (aND currently correct). These green brutes, engineered doomsday weapon that they are, have wildly different genetics and consequently needs and trivialities then humans do. They need to fight in the same way humans need to eat and drink. They are correct when they say they fight they win, they die fighting they still win. It's part of their genetic makeup that they'll keep triggering adolescent periods and getting bigger when they win fights (which ties closely to a human centric victory). Yet also their violent deaths is their most efficient means of procreation their species and built into their instincts. The species as a whole would die off without any good fights (and thus the biggest reason they aren't united cuz they will fight each other when no one else is around). Finding and ultimately dieing in a good scrap is in their instincts backed by ingrained knowledge coded into their dna to make that happen on a galactic scale.

Ghazzy is an interesting ork. Thanks to Gork and Mork he's fully aware of the species gestalt Waaaagh energy and it's implications. He's actively manipulating it, nursing it, setting in motion the requirements to get it high enought in the galaxy for the two warp gods to tear themselves out if the warp into real space so Ragnorork can begin. He wasn't able to stay on Armageddon even if he wanted too. The two gods were like a painful migraine demanding he move on just as they are doing it to him again on Octaria now that it's become a perpetual war zone like Armegeddon. Their desire is for Ghazzy to create a few more of these super sized wars in which billions upon billions of Orks are flooding to and building the Waaaagh energy.

For this plan to succeed each of these wars can't come to an end with a Victor or else each Waaaagh is done fighting and comes apart. The fighting needs to be perpetual ( or at least long enough for more to be triggered) to keep the Waaaagh energy waxing not waning. If the Imperium knew this they could thwart Ghazzy plans and stop engaging Orks, deny them any resistance, of course this means giving Orks a human centric standard of victory by losing lots of territory when in fact the Orks actually need an orky style victory by keeping the fighting going till enough Waaaagh energy summons Gork and Mork to begin Ragnorork (and THEN the more human centric standard of victory will begin in a tide of green).

I wish Ghazzy could take credit for all this but I'm afraid he's telling the truth. He is a propget of Gork and Mork. They really are speaking to him and directly intervening on his behalf several times deus ex machinas style. Heck even gifting him with the insane ability to see and communicate across the galaxy in real time. Let that sink for a moment. From Octaria he can see on Armegeddon how one of his lootenants are doing, speak to them and get an immediate reaction (following orders) as though he was their beside him. Not sure why Gork and Mork decided to get interested in real space but they are pulling the strings.

tl:dr - Orks are getting victories in their own Orky way but none of the humans can understand it or fathom the meaning behind it (except maybe Yarrick but he is as orky as they get without being an ork).

@Casti: No goalposts are changing at all. The comment I always fallback on is literally my main point, the enormous discrepancy between wins and losses compared between the Imperium and non-Imperium factions. There is no changing of the goalposts, instead you simply don't seem to understand what my actual point is.

I get bogged down in 'semantics' as you call it because I feel precision of language is important in this case. As I've said, why does it matter the outcome of a single battle? That doesn't change the point at large at all. Until you an demonstrate something beyond a single battle it isn't worth my time since none of it challenges the central point.

Additionally I'm not going to waste my time with coming up with individuals 'victory conditions' since that misses the point completely that human players in reality invest in these armies and their fluff and would like to see them succeed in such a manner that they feel competent and as if their investment was rewarded. It is for those people I feel empathy.

@AndrewC: I try to be as unselective as possible but since certain fluff directly contradicts other fluff it is difficult.

Also you seem to be mistaking purposeful ignorance for omission. I don't focus on fluff which has no data and empirical information for me to gauge exactly because I cannot discuss it because there is nothing to discuss and no information present. It is an absence of precise information, I prefer only to rely on precise information as anything else is impossible to discuss and unreliable.

Besides none of this even addresses then, by this logic, that the Imperium is doing great in 40k since its latest rulebook (for the entire game) describes the Imperium as larger and stronger than ever.

As TheoreticalFish pointed out much earlier fiction from GW concerning non-Imperium factions is minute by comparison.

The general answer? or the anwser to specific queries such as 'why are Eldar such weak Psykers'? In general the answer is usually along the lines of 'sorry you feel that way' and then followed by reassurances that 'stuff will be coming up in the future so be excited'.

I don't honestly know what to make of the statement concerning my English. I don't know if it is really relevant.

Also, no, since after nine pages its been repeatedly stated by numerous individuals here that a large number do agree that the principle of more representation and success for non-Imperium factions is good, they're only opposed to my highly negative description of the factions in questions. A majority do not dispute that, as TheoreticaFish put it, there is a clear imbalance which would be well served to be rectified. So clearly you and I have taken two very different things away from the entire conversation.

Simply saying 'get out there and win those victories' doesn't change that players of factions other than the Imperium want to read book series and fluff about their factions, their characters, kicking as much butt as the Imperium, achieving as great and significant as the Imperium, characters as able to match those of the Imperium. I see no reason why they should be denied that.

And of course people can disagree on things, this entire page alone has been people disagreeing.

@UnusualSuspect: None of that changes that all major victories, and the vast majority of narrative engagements, are won by the Imperium.

Or that the Imperium is described as larger than ever before and growing.

Honestly I get attempting to argue that I'm too harsh on the non-Imperium faction, but I don't understand disputing the clear empirical difference in win-loss between the factions, particularly from the perspective of players investing in the factions.

Why don't we see similar situations to where multiple Primarchs and their armies fail to defeat and capture ground from a Xenos threat? Or simply are defeated and lose to an army of Xenos and must abandon a wide swathe of space to them permanently?

Why not see the same in the current time period, have Marneus and Dante, or Azrael and Logan simply engaged in a large scale war where they try their best but are simply defeated and they and all their armies are forced to retreat from the threat by the Chaos or Xenos army leaving the sector or whatever to be claimed by Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Eldrad or whoever?

I don't see what's wrong with that occuring for the non-Imperium factions as well. That's really what I'm saying.

@ProwlerPC: Yarrick considers the 2nd War of Armageddon a victory. He also considers the 3rd War a stalemate. If Yarrick's opinion is valid then we can definitively state that Ghazghkull has only ever won a single battle against the Imperium (Golgotha).

I don't understand this, I really don't. Ghazghkull simply has engaged the Imperium on three planets and only on one has he ever managed to not be repulsed or ground down into a stalemate.

Compare to the huge number of victories, personal kills (Avatars/Greater Daemons/Angg'arath himself) Marine Chapter Masters have. Why is it wrong to give Ghazghkull that?

The thing is Anemone, we have given you multiple examples of a factions victory over the Imperium from that factions point of view. The Black Crusades are one set of 12 examples, considered major campaigns in the fluff. Ghaz considers the Armageddon battles to be a victory for orks from the orks point of view. But you come back and state the imperium calls it a win so it must be a loss for the opposing faction.

I don't have a problem with admitting I think that chaos and xenos factions could get more love in the fluff but the gulf you keep going on about is not as wide as you are making out. Its because as soon as the Imperium states they won a war, you seem to automatically discount any other points of view in the fluff.

Battles where the Imperiums greatest heroes got bogged down and beaten would result in the death of said heroes. The Imperium isn't known for taking a step backwards and frankly, while it would mourn the loss of such heroes, there are more waiting in the shadows and willing to step up to the big time.
The reason why GW doesn't do this is because the player base is invested into those characters and it would cause an outcry by players that are invested into that characters faction. Its also why the major xenos and chaos players don't get knocked off.

The other reason why there are not big title fights is for the same reason, it will typically end in stalemate with both sides usually having a heroic intervention saving their ass from the faction. that's typically boring but its safe. That's why its generally the main character whooping a mook generated for that sole purpose (the chaplain in Traitor's hate vs Kharn is a prime example)

PLease don't ignore the fact that while the Imperials may state they won a battle, the chaos or xenos faction may state the same and they can both be correct. Maybe have a look at your fluff resources, the books and codices, not the 40k wiki and lexicanium and see if there are wars in which both sides claim victory. ( I say not to use the wiki or lexicanium as they are fan made and not official sorces and the wording can be altered to create bias where they may be none)

@Casti: Are you claiming parity or not now? Because I can't tell from that post exactly. My answer differs greatly depending on whether you are claiming overall parity or not, or simply making an argument that non-Imperium factions win 'sometimes'.

Armageddon isn't considered a victory by Ghazghkull, he considers it a process to victory, he does not consider himself to have won yet. The Black Crusades I'm afraid I'd have to leave to someone who knows Chaos better, Iron Captain, since I primarily now Xenos.

Also battles where the greatest heroes of the Imperium get bogged down don't at all need to lead to anyone's death.

Did Mogrok or Badrukk die in Sanctus? Did Eldrad die in Death Masque? Did Ghazghkull die in either Piscina or the 2nd War for Armageddon? No. Losing a major engagement unequivocally to an enemy does not at all mean the character needs to die.

I contend, and will continue to do so, that I will be convinced of your argument about greater parity if you can demonstrate to me a conflict in a wide area of space where a number of Primarchs or named Chapter Masters engaged to the best of their abilities a non-Imperium faction and, despite their best efforts, were simply unable to claim victory and forced to flee from the threat. Surrendering an acknowledged significant swathe of space which was contested completely to said threat with no reclamation at a latter date.

That being said, since it is being said a lot, I'm willing to accept I've perhaps been to harsh on the non-Imperium factions, a reflection perhaps of my deep seated despair over the matter. But I do not change my position at all. I stand by my point concerning disparity of victories and achievements.

As for special characters and power, I'd rather not go there, since it is an entirely different pet peeve of mine that due to the existence of the Emperor and Primarchs virtually all the strongest beings in the story (barring the Chaos Gods) are humans an most other factions have no way to compete with even a single Primarch. But I don't want to go into that here.

I'm not entirely sure what the original point of this thread is now but I think it seems to be about the fact the IOM has more screen time then the other factions and that the IOM has not taken any huge unrecoverable losses?

The are a variety of reasons for that though. There are already biases towards the IOM such as the business related side, the fact that the IOM is easier to relate to then the big alien gribblies and I think the most important reason of all, is that the IOM are the protagonists to the story and setting. This is the format that every single film and story follows. The focus will always be on the protagonist more then the antagonist, which in this case is all of the other factions besieging the IOM.

Each faction codex also has shown the damage that they have caused to the IOM and what their own objectives are and how they are working towards them. Just because the IOM eventually won that war, does not mean they did not sustain terrible losses in the process and any damage the enemy cause is a victory to them, just not overall victory.

However really the antagonists can never really do huge irreparable damage to the IOM and vice versa because the constraints of the story. Realistically everything is only going to be token damage. This works both ways Just because the IOM beat back the tryanid Hive fleet does not mean the end of them. There are supposedly billions more waiting and on the way still, so the IOM has only caused token damage to the nids factions which are still plenty dangerous. It just so happens that the clock has frozen at this point in the story, but if they moved the timeline forward another thousand years maybe for all we know the tryanids have won the end game and have stripped this galaxy bare and moved on. That is why people play the other factions other then the IOM, they are still in the process of playing for the end game, it is far from over, and really only the beginning as they build up their proper strength. Same goes for all the other factions.

Everything has really only been small fry for what is eventually coming, it's just we won't see it as the setting has been frozen before that time comes when the IOM is the top dog at present but doesn't mean it would always be so. It can't realistically move on without a huge dramatic rewrite that would upset a whole lot of people and there is no need for it. It is not at present a continual narrative so there is no need to have any definitive endings and all the other factions are clearly implied to be making clear headway in the setting also.

Didn't Hive fleet Behemoth destroy plenty of the Macragge system worlds before it was finally halted and thus mean that those worlds are now no longer a resource available to the Ultramarines. However they could not have Macragge itself destroyed as that is a valuable setting and there would probably be a huge outcry from the ultramarine fans, but for tryanid players they have a different objective that there faction achieved a fair bit by nearly wiping out the Macragge system and the whole 1st company. Which as a tryanid fan Im happy with, because I know the limits of the story and that Macragge obviously couldn't be destroyed realistically without huge dramatic fluff changes which would upset people. Instead it is better to keep both factions happy and keep the status quo.

@Wilks: The original point, from what I could gather, is that Rocket Scientist didn't see much reason for players to invest in non-Imperium factions since only the Imperium ever seemed to have much narrative success.

They compared it to Fantasy which tended to more equally dole out major victories and have major characters from all factions contribute significantly to the plot rather than one group simply existing to die at the others hands.

At least that was the gist of it I got.

Now I disagree with the protagonist/antagonist point. Maybe that's the central thing here. I don't see why the other factions can't be just as much protagonists as the Imperium for the players who choose them.

Furthermore, and I really wish we'd get off this point since I've already said this, nothing needs to be 'irreparable' at all. No-one is saying the Imperium needs to be destroyed or suffer irreparable harm. Just that it would be nice for them to suffer defeats on the same scale as they've inflicted on the other factions in the game.

Were Chaos Space Marines irreparably damaged after losing the Horus Heresy? Were the Orks irreparably damaged after losing the Beast War? As you point out the Tyranid are not irreparably damaged after losing the 1st Tyrannic War either. So the Imperium suffering a similar defeat in which they put a major military offensive (of named and established importance) against their enemy and simply lose and must withdraw/retreat and allow their enemy to claim victory doesn't mean the Imperium needs to be destroyed or irreparably harmed anymore than the Orks, Chaos Space Marines or Nids have been harmed.

Indeed if any faction has suffered irreparable harm it is the Craftworld Eldar in Death Masque, and I believe with their near-constant losses the Craftworld Eldar deserve, for the sake of their players, a major and unambiguous military victory over the Imperium for a change.

With that said; I definitely believe that Tyranid are the most successful in fluff of all Xenos, that's without a doubt, but their victories still do not compare to that of the Imperium in the established fluff.

Also why not lose Macragge? I mean the Chaos Legions all lost their homeworlds, the Orks lost Ullanor so why not have a major Chapter suffer a major loss, like their homeworld, and be forced to become spacebound or relocate? Why is it so unthinkable for Macragge to be lost but not at all for Ullanor, Prospero or such to be lost?

Why, for example, in Eldar-centric fluff did Alaitoc not just beat the Imperium invaders but instead need them to withdraw whilst establishing Alaitoc wouldn't have been able to win? If its a Eldar-based novel why not give the Eldar an actual win over the Imperium when fighting on their very home?

Yeah I'll agree with all those points, and the Death Masque thing is just catastrophically awful writing without thinking for a second what the words on the page would mean for the rest of the setting.

I think what people were railing against was the OP's assertion that any faction other than the Imperium was not worth investing in.

I'd definitely like for there to be more unequivocal victories for other factions, and there are plenty of ways to move the story forwards without evoking the whole 'End Times' debacle.

Why not have the Ultramarines lose Macragge? They still have the rest of Ultramar with which to relocate to.

It'd be cool to have the Imperium lose Cadia and have to re-establish a wider perimeter to contain Chaos incursions. As Cadians are some of the most common Guard regiments, and guardsmen get right of colonisation on planets they conquer there will be loads of mini-Cadias to keep the model range. Plus, they could do some cool stuff with the Imperium emptying it's geneseed banks in another great Founding of SM chapters to contain the threat, letting them sell more of their favourite power-armoured cash machines...

Have Huron re-take the Badab sector and establish a chaos empire in realspace, actually run with a degree of efficiency.

On the Eldar front, I do remember reading somewhere that Biel Tan fairly effortlessly wiped out two sector fleets, which helps slightly. I should do a poll on how many people would care in the slightest if Death Masque was ret-conned to all be a dream of a possible future if Eldrad tried such a rash, risky and out-of-character act...

I'm sure we could come up with some more that wouldn't break the IoM...

It would be nice if it were like the Video Games, where you choose an army campaign, and your faction (No matter how 'evil' they are) are the protagonists and everyone else is the antagonists. Example, you play Eldar, Eldar are the protagonists and Chaos/Mankind are the Evil guys. If you read an Eldar book, the story should revolve the Eldar and how much ass they kick.

That works on small scale, not sure how it would go on Big scale. Like multi-race fights, someone has to win and lose.

I would love to see an Imperial Amy get their ass whooped in their own novel, like the Iron Warriors do in Siege of Castellax.

Pretty sure everyone can agree Death Masque was just. awful.
Why only a squad? If it was like an entire Chapter and the Harlequins were holding the line but getting slowly pushed back, sick. But no, one squad of veterans murdered the eternal servants of the Trickster God. Who totally could have done something.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, side note.

Just went through the Black Library website, counting all the Xeno/Chaos focused novels.

34.

So yeah, literally more novels about the Horus Heresy then there are Xeno-Focused books.

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
I would love to see an Imperial Amy get their ass whooped in their own novel, like the Iron Warriors do in Siege of Castellax.

Yo, James Swallow's Blood Angels series has you covered there!

'Oh noes! Fabius Bile has infiltrated our fortress monastery, created a bunch of mutants which have made Curbolo look like a chump and drunk the blood of Sanguinius from the Red Grail and killed the First Captain. What shall we do, Dante?!'
'Dunno. Get sassed at by Seth and plan the exterminatus of Baal?'
'Sounds great! Better than that time half of us were blatantly manipulated by that Lord of Change and we all ended up killing each other at any rate...'

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
If you read an Eldar book, the story revolves around the Eldar and how much ass they kick.

My biggest disappointment when reading the Path of the Eldar trilogy...

On the 'Eldar needing a win' front, I await Jain Zar with baited breath.

Casti wrote:
Still classed as a victory by chaos in their codex and supplements. As with the other black crusades

Yes, and the Ork WAAAGH! that was hypothetically wiped out by a single marine could've called it a win for them due to their motto, but that wouldn't make it one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would have bern an outright victory if the imperisls destroyed all 4 blackstones or completely destroyed the chaos fleet or pursued the chaos fleet into the eye of terror and destroyed them there. They let chaos get away with 2 blackstones and allowed them to regroup.
Hell, the only reson why abbadon didnt get all 6 is because the eldar intervened and helped the imperium

Failing to completely destroy your enemy by having them retreat doesn't take away from their victory at all. The fact that Chaos had to retreat shows that the Imperium beat them. Sure, the Blackstones were a loss, but they still defeated Chaos in battle and forced them to a full retreat. Defeating the enemy and forcing them to retreat is most definitely a win. And the Eldar helping them doesn't change it from being an Imperium victory.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are set on denying that the Black Crusades of Abbadon have been victories for Chaos, you are cherry picking what parts of the fluff you are using in this argument. As it has been said before, use all of it or none of it. Additionally i will say again, nowhere in the fluff does it say that one side cant claim victory ifthe other side does.

No, both sides can claim victory. The Orks claim victory every time. That doesn't mean it's really a victory for them. As an Ork player, to see an entire Ork WAAAGH! be destroyed by a single space marine would be a crippling loss for them, whether the Orks claim they won or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Orks have the most planet, most territory and highest population in the galaxy st the moment. Even if they don't know it on an individual level they are in it for the long game (60+million years and counting) and are currently the most successful race. Due to lack of unification they don't get the medal for the largest cohesive empire in the galaxy which belongs to the Imperium of Man. The fluff says this. Nonetheless even from a human centric view of victory the Orks are currently winning.

If the fluff can mention it, but it clearly doesn't show it. The most powerful Ork warboss has had his ass kicked and hasn't been winning any major victories. Hence, there's not much reason for non-Imperial players to be invested if the fluff's showing them get their ass kicked.

The others are correct, however, in saying that such a standard for victory is negligible at an individual Orks point of view. I highly doubt any of them have any idea how many they are across the galaxy other then a crude view that green is da best (aND currently correct). These green brutes, engineered doomsday weapon that they are, have wildly different genetics and consequently needs and trivialities then humans do. They need to fight in the same way humans need to eat and drink. They are correct when they say they fight they win, they die fighting they still win. It's part of their genetic makeup that they'll keep triggering adolescent periods and getting bigger when they win fights (which ties closely to a human centric victory). Yet also their violent deaths is their most efficient means of procreation their species and built into their instincts. The species as a whole would die off without any good fights (and thus the biggest reason they aren't united cuz they will fight each other when no one else is around). Finding and ultimately dieing in a good scrap is in their instincts backed by ingrained knowledge coded into their dna to make that happen on a galactic scale.

Ghazzy is an interesting ork. Thanks to Gork and Mork he's fully aware of the species gestalt Waaaagh energy and it's implications. He's actively manipulating it, nursing it, setting in motion the requirements to get it high enought in the galaxy for the two warp gods to tear themselves out if the warp into real space so Ragnorork can begin. He wasn't able to stay on Armageddon even if he wanted too. The two gods were like a painful migraine demanding he move on just as they are doing it to him again on Octaria now that it's become a perpetual war zone like Armegeddon. Their desire is for Ghazzy to create a few more of these super sized wars in which billions upon billions of Orks are flooding to and building the Waaaagh energy.

For this plan to succeed each of these wars can't come to an end with a Victor or else each Waaaagh is done fighting and comes apart. The fighting needs to be perpetual ( or at least long enough for more to be triggered) to keep the Waaaagh energy waxing not waning. If the Imperium knew this they could thwart Ghazzy plans and stop engaging Orks, deny them any resistance, of course this means giving Orks a human centric standard of victory by losing lots of territory when in fact the Orks actually need an orky style victory by keeping the fighting going till enough Waaaagh energy summons Gork and Mork to begin Ragnorork (and THEN the more human centric standard of victory will begin in a tide of green).

I wish Ghazzy could take credit for all this but I'm afraid he's telling the truth. He is a propget of Gork and Mork. They really are speaking to him and directly intervening on his behalf several times deus ex machinas style. Heck even gifting him with the insane ability to see and communicate across the galaxy in real time. Let that sink for a moment. From Octaria he can see on Armegeddon how one of his lootenants are doing, speak to them and get an immediate reaction (following orders) as though he was their beside him. Not sure why Gork and Mork decided to get interested in real space but they are pulling the strings.

tl:dr - Orks are getting victories in their own Orky way but none of the humans can understand it or fathom the meaning behind it (except maybe Yarrick but he is as orky as they get without being an ork).

Ghazghkull has made it clear he did want to take Armageddon. The stalemate is said to have taken up all of Ghazghkull patience and he got bored and went on. He's expressed sentiment of wanting to conquer over the Imperium before. To say he wanted to make Armageddon a stalemeate is incorrect. Once the planet was taken, the WAAAGH! most definitely wouldn't fall apart, it would just continue onto the next world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wilks wrote:



I'm not entirely sure what the original point of this thread is now but I think it seems to be about the fact the IOM has more screen time then the other factions and that the IOM has not taken any huge unrecoverable losses?

The are a variety of reasons for that though. There are already biases towards the IOM such as the business related side, the fact that the IOM is easier to relate to then the big alien gribblies and I think the most important reason of all, is that the IOM are the protagonists to the story and setting. This is the format that every single film and story follows. The focus will always be on the protagonist more then the antagonist, which in this case is all of the other factions besieging the IOM.

Each faction codex also has shown the damage that they have caused to the IOM and what their own objectives are and how they are working towards them. Just because the IOM eventually won that war, does not mean they did not sustain terrible losses in the process and any damage the enemy cause is a victory to them, just not overall victory.

However really the antagonists can never really do huge irreparable damage to the IOM and vice versa because the constraints of the story. Realistically everything is only going to be token damage. This works both ways Just because the IOM beat back the tryanid Hive fleet does not mean the end of them. There are supposedly billions more waiting and on the way still, so the IOM has only caused token damage to the nids factions which are still plenty dangerous. It just so happens that the clock has frozen at this point in the story, but if they moved the timeline forward another thousand years maybe for all we know the tryanids have won the end game and have stripped this galaxy bare and moved on. That is why people play the other factions other then the IOM, they are still in the process of playing for the end game, it is far from over, and really only the beginning as they build up their proper strength. Same goes for all the other factions.

Everything has really only been small fry for what is eventually coming, it's just we won't see it as the setting has been frozen before that time comes when the IOM is the top dog at present but doesn't mean it would always be so. It can't realistically move on without a huge dramatic rewrite that would upset a whole lot of people and there is no need for it. It is not at present a continual narrative so there is no need to have any definitive endings and all the other factions are clearly implied to be making clear headway in the setting also.

Didn't Hive fleet Behemoth destroy plenty of the Macragge system worlds before it was finally halted and thus mean that those worlds are now no longer a resource available to the Ultramarines. However they could not have Macragge itself destroyed as that is a valuable setting and there would probably be a huge outcry from the ultramarine fans, but for tryanid players they have a different objective that there faction achieved a fair bit by nearly wiping out the Macragge system and the whole 1st company. Which as a tryanid fan Im happy with, because I know the limits of the story and that Macragge obviously couldn't be destroyed realistically without huge dramatic fluff changes which would upset people. Instead it is better to keep both factions happy and keep the status quo.

I don't believe anyone's argueing that the Imperium hasn't taken hits. Many of its victories were Pyrrhic, for instance. Due to the whole grimdark thing, that's expected. It's more of an issue that in the fluff, the Imperium always manages to kick their enemies' asses. While Macragge was definitely bad for the Imperium, the Tyranids lost it. It's mainly that unless you're the Imperium, the fluff shows your team losing for the most part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheoreticalFish wrote:

That works on small scale, not sure how it would go on Big scale. Like multi-race fights, someone has to win and lose.

That's true, but you can easily switch them up. No one's saying the Imperium should lose everyone. If they kick some Ork ass on one world, have the Ork have a success somewhere else. Fairly easily done.

So people want the xenos to have more victories against the Imperium? There are plenty of example of Xenos causing damage to the IOM, such as the destruction of plants which is which is a big deal. I mean a whole planet getting destroyed or overrun is a huge loss of resources and there are examples of whole marine chapters being destroyed and also of star systems being lost to xenos and chaos. The problem is that because the setting is so huge, all these losses really are just a footnote of the games history.

If you want something even more substantial for the Imperium to lose such as something that is very established fluff like Macragge or Baal or Armageddon being lost. I ask does it really make a difference? All that would happen is it would become just another footnote in the history of the game for another xeno faction that would soon be forgotten, rather then a mini setting inside the 40k setting that people can enjoy as present fluff. They could do it easily enough but it seems like it would not be much of a pay off, and serve to cause more disruption to the fan base then anything else. It would be doing it, for the sake of doing it.

I see most of the battles that the IOM have had as two boxers fighting and the IOM just winning on points, rather then a one punch KO. Its a victory, yes, but a hard fought one indeed.

People enjoy other factions because there are other factors to be attracted to, other then just the amount of victories weather it be aesthetics, theme etc.
Also when someone chooses their faction it is there own army that is then the protagonist and whoever you play or read about then become the antagonist to your faction as they are now opposing you and your army. However the whole overarching plot of 40k however I would say it is firmly the IOM as the protagonist as it is told from their point of view for the majority. When someone picks another faction other then the IOM that faction can then become the protagonist as that is what they are focusing on for the majority and the other armies are now opposing them.

I don't know if people would be that much more attracted to other xeno factions just because they have a few more victories under there belt. Like I said before there are other factors, not just about how successful they are. None of the factions either are fairing badly, it is just that the timeline has been frozen at a point in time when the IOM just happen to be in a position of power that is all. All sides have been bloodied but can still go for plenty more rounds yet and no one can call a clear victor.

Wilks wrote:

So people want the xenos to have more victories against the Imperium? There are plenty of example of Xenos causing damage to the IOM, such as the destruction of plants which is which is a big deal. I mean a whole planet getting destroyed or overrun is a huge loss of resources and there are examples of whole marine chapters being destroyed and also of star systems being lost to xenos and chaos. The problem is that because the setting is so huge, all these losses really are just a footnote of the games history.

If you want something even more substantial for the Imperium to lose such as something that is very established fluff like Macragge or Baal or Armageddon being lost. I ask does it really make a difference? All that would happen is it would become just another footnote in the history of the game for another xeno faction that would soon be forgotten, rather then a mini setting inside the 40k setting that people can enjoy as present fluff. They could do it easily enough but it seems like it would not be much of a pay off, and serve to cause more disruption to the fan base then anything else. It would be doing it, for the sake of doing it.

I see most of the battles that the IOM have had as two boxers fighting and the IOM just winning on points, rather then a one punch KO. Its a victory, yes, but a hard fought one indeed.

People enjoy other factions because there are other factors to be attracted to, other then just the amount of victories weather it be aesthetics, theme etc.
Also when someone chooses their faction it is there own army that is then the protagonist and whoever you play or read about then become the antagonist to your faction as they are now opposing you and your army. However the whole overarching plot of 40k however I would say it is firmly the IOM as the protagonist as it is told from their point of view for the majority. When someone picks another faction other then the IOM that faction can then become the protagonist as that is what they are focusing on for the majority and the other armies are now opposing them.

I don't know if people would be that much more attracted to other xeno factions just because they have a few more victories under there belt. Like I said before there are other factors, not just about how successful they are. None of the factions either are fairing badly, it is just that the timeline has been frozen at a point in time when the IOM just happen to be in a position of power that is all. All sides have been bloodied but can still go for plenty more rounds yet and no one can call a clear victor.

No, they (we, seeing as I'm one of them) want the amount of victories to be more equal. Don't make the Imperium lose more than it wins in the big fluff stuff, just make it more equal.

Maccrage and Armageddon (I'm not familiar with Baal, so please do tell me about it) where both places where the Imperium won. The issue isn't at all that we want something mentioned in passing. Saying "Oh yeah, this Ork warboss took over that system." We want actual battles to be shown in fluff where the Imperium loses. There's a handful, be we're looking for closer to parity so that this isn't just the Imperium kicking the asses of all the other teams.

Yeah, the battles are hard fought. That's because one overpowered team crushing a weak one isn't entertaining. The battles have to be hard-fought to be fun and entertaining, that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of the time it's still the Imperium winning.

Yeah, there are definitely things other than victories that draw people to teams, but when the fluff shows for the most part your team of choice as losers being constantly defeated, that's a turn off. When someone picks another faction they're the protagonist to themselves, yeah, but the fluff is still showing them losing for the most part. Hell,

Well, the OP already made it clear that they're someone who has been turned away from this. Sure, there's reasons to pick one faction over another, but when one faction loses a lot more, a lot of people can get frustrated by this. The OP even said he'd stick with Fantasy because there the Orks (I think that was his faction of choice) had some big victories rather than being permanent losers.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:


Failing to completely destroy your enemy by having them retreat doesn't take away from their victory at all. The fact that Chaos had to retreat shows that the Imperium beat them. Sure, the Blackstones were a loss, but they still defeated Chaos in battle and forced them to a full retreat. Defeating the enemy and forcing them to retreat is most definitely a win. And the Eldar helping them doesn't change it from being an Imperium victory.

Abaddon's mission wasn't to take the Gothic Sector. Win or lose he was going to retreat from the sector. The scale of his success depended largely on how many Blackstone Fortresses he could capture and how much damage he could do to the Gothic Sector in the meantime.

@Wilks: No there aren't. I've counted them. The Imperium always wins more.

The worst offender are the Orks who have about 16 wins to 63 losses against the Imperium. Most of those wins are against planets described in the setting as being 'sparsely' or 'lightly' defended. Craftworld Eldar have an equally abysmal record of 7 wins to 18 losses against the Imperium.

There is simply an enormous discrepancy in the ratio of victories and losses between the Imperium and non-Imperium factions.

Additionally the destruction of a single planet isn't meaningful in 40k automatically. Several times in the fluff the destruction of whole planets has been explicitly called 'insignificant'.

The problem is not that the setting is 'huge'. Look at the losses of the other factions; The Horus Heresy, The Beast Waaagh!!! and such, these aren't just insignificant. They're important triumphs for the Imperium and are treated as such in Fluff. All I'm asking is that the same be done for the non-Imperium factions too!

Also...of course it makes a difference, this is a narrative game? By that logic why did the Orks lose Ullanor or Thousand Sons Prospero? If its so irrelevant to you why does it only happen to the non-Imperium factions? Why not allow it to happen to the Imperium as well? You still haven't addressed why this discrepancy must exist.

In your own example you still concede that the Imperium has won most battles. In a boxing match if someone wins on points they still win! No-one tells them they didn't win!. So your own example makes my point; why not let some of the other non-Imperium factions enjoy major victorious successes against the narrative force of the Imperium? The way the Imperium has against them?

The Imperium killed all six Primeorks, why not let Orks kill some Primarchs?

People enjoy factions for a variety of reasons, but acting like there isn't a demand or desire from numerous players of non-Imperium factions to see the fluff represent their faction better and afford a greater equality of the division of victories and defeats in fluff is ignoring the actual words of the players themselves.

I have no doubt many people would be happier if non-Imperium factions enjoyed more narrative success in the setting, since I know many people personally who explicitly want that.

Honestly I had thought a relative consensus was forming, but I cannot accept the notion that the Imperium in fluff in anyway is comparable in terms of wins and losses to other factons.

Wilks, when you can show me an engagement where the top special characters from the Imperium (so Marneus, Dante, Azrael, Logan and such) go into a massive war with one of the main non-Imperium factions and, despite their best efforts and a huge army, simply lose and are forced to withdraw to avoid destruction and secede a wide swathe of previously contested space to the enemy permanently then I will find your argument more persuasive. Show me that non-Imperium factions have at least as many of these as the Imperium has.

Until you can show that to me, though, I just don't find your argument persuasive at all.